D&D 5E The Monk - What is the monk to you and why?

[Minigiant]

So to me, the monk is not an archetype, it's a high level version of an archetype we already have--the warrior.

And to me, monks are not just warriors. They are closer to Rogues.

The math is
Rogue base - Sneak Attack - Underworld Knowledge (traps, locks, and cunning) + Fighter level combat ( only when unarmed or using simple weapons and when unarmored) + Cleric level Wisdom, Insight, Speech, and Healing (Self only)

They are closer to rogues to me. Monks are heavily reliant on Dexterity for defense. They backflip, tumble, and jump all over the place. Many are decent talkers. Most are good at perception. And to beat an equal level warrior, they must throw everything at them.

The main thing is you trade out Underworld Tactics and Lore for Spiritual and Physical Perfection.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Who/What Caine? Michael Caine?

You HAVE to be joking.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The monk?

He's an Easterner lost in a Western European fantasy world. It's appropriate that he knows kung fu.

He runs around, all flashy, tumbling, and dodging, then runs up and flurry of misses you until you fall down laughing.

 

[Tovec]

You HAVE to be joking.

No. You haven't given me anything to go on except a single word and when I type that into google I find Michael Caine and I don't see how he relates to monks so.. No, really not joking.

 

[Sadrik]

And to me, monks are not just warriors. They are closer to Rogues.

The math is
Rogue base - Sneak Attack - Underworld Knowledge (traps, locks, and cunning) + Fighter level combat ( only when unarmed or using simple weapons and when unarmored) + Cleric level Wisdom, Insight, Speech, and Healing (Self only)

They are closer to rogues to me. Monks are heavily reliant on Dexterity for defense. They backflip, tumble, and jump all over the place. Many are decent talkers. Most are good at perception. And to beat an equal level warrior, they must throw everything at them.

The main thing is you trade out Underworld Tactics and Lore for Spiritual and Physical Perfection.

I agree, I think they are rogues too. If shadow dancer fits under rogue so does the monk.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I consider "monks" to be martial artists, warriors who focus on unarmed combat and exotic weapons. I would prefer for "monk" to be a background, and for the class to be called the martial artist. It is, after all, possible to be a monk that isn't a martial artist, or vice versa. A western monk is similar to an eastern monk in many ways. They live a lifestyle of contemplation and voluntary poverty. But western monks (and even many eastern monks) are not experts at kung fu. That is why I wouldn't make martial artists a priest class. The religious component, IMO, belongs in the background, not in the class. Not all martial artists are priests or even religious. But they are all warriors, whether they admit it or not. Sure, they might use self discipline to accomplish more than what mundane people can do. But they're also highly effective killing machines. That is first and foremost what martial arts are about - fighting (hence the word "martial").

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

No. You haven't given me anything to go on except a single word and when I type that into google I find Michael Caine and I don't see how he relates to monks so.. No, really not joking.

It's a reference to the catchphrase of Kwai Chang Caine from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu:_The_Legend_Continues - he's a Shaolin monk.

 

[Stormonu]

The 1E monk is clearly the shoalin monk of 70's martials arts film and Caine of the Kung Fu TV series.

But nowadays, I see monks including the likes of Ken, Ryu and gang from the various Street Fighter games (and Mortal Kombat, etc.), as well as Neo of the Matrix series, and the "classical" monk we see in movies like Hidden Lion, Crouching Tiger, Hero and the dozens of Hong Kong action films passed to us over the years. I love Diablo 3's take of a Russian "Orthodox" (Rasputin?) Monk and I could even see creating "western" orders of martial, spiritually minded Franscian monks who use unarmed combat or "common tools" to defend their brethren or the local masses. Imagine a Friar Tuck who used unarmed combat instead of a mace and actually had the "power of god" behind him.

I think 3E failed - and that Pathfinder followed suite - in not giving us monks with options. All of the monk's abilities are fixed, and a bit too spread around across so many diverse tropes that it's difficult to make it useful unless you play the one-true-way of making them a shoalin monk sort of character. The way I would build a monk class, the 3E version is a "Travel Domain" Monk. I think the monk should have most of its abilities stripped out, and replaced with a sort of spell point system (ki pool). You basically give them access to a handful of spells like the Paladin or Ranger and perhaps a Cleric Domain to create a "theme". A Monk of War (War domain - enchanted unarmed attacks, self-buffs) would have a very different feel to our Monk of the Path (Travel domain - movement-related abilities), and so on.

Now, most people would probably balk at monks "casting spells", but I think in the end it's a better fit; fluff them that they aren't cast like spells but brought into being by intense inner focus and will - much in the same way we often visualize bards singing or playing a musical instrument to weave their magic. Katas would essentially replace somatic components and verbal components would instead be either a battlecry or a very disciplined breathing technique (the release of chi). Most of their "spells" I'd imagine would be ones without material components, but those that did need them would probably remain the same (I could see a monk staring into a calm pool to scry, for example).

 

[MerricB]

My basic feeling about monks is that the mechanics for them were awful in 1E, 2E and 3E and really good in 4E.

I really think they should belong to the fighter category just because their major identifiable trait is FIGHTING. Yes, they have other abilities, but without actually being able to, you know, fight, they've got problems. And this describes the monk in 1E, 2E and 3E (and PF). The monk wanders up to an opponent, tries to hit it, and fails. The main identifying trait of the 3E monk was "hard to hit"/"good saves", which doesn't really do much for actual fun gameplay.

If I was able to dictate the goals of the monk design, they'd include the following:
* GREAT MELEE COMBAT (on the level of the best fighters)
* MODERATE DEFENSES (on the level of thieves/clerics)
* MODERATE SKILLS
* MINOR SPECIAL ABILITIES

Cheers!

 

[KidSnide]

I agree with the OP in that I think of Monks as being somewhat like Jedi. They are lightly armored warriors with a significant skill profile (equivalent to rangers) and a collection of mystic abilities. I see their magic as being different from arcane magic, but am agnostic as to whether it's psionic in nature or otherwise generically "mystical". I like the idea that monks are better than your average fighter and handling the problems of being disarmed, but I find it bizarre (and out of genre) that your average monk would prefer barehanded combat over using a proper weapon.

I also think Monks should multiclass well. A monk-paladin covers the "avenger" space, a monk-assassin covers the "ninja" space and a monk-fighter covers the "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" space.

-KS